Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20.06.2008 in O.A.No.382 of 2008 whereby and whereunder, the Central Administrative Tribunal rejected his claim for reinstatement. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as a casual labourer in Transit Mail Office (T.M.O.) at Egmore in the year 1982, and later, he was transferred to the third respondent division on 01.02.2000 and posted in the Airmail Progression Centre. As per memo dated 09.02.2001, the petitioner was conferred with temporary status with effect from 01.01.2001 by the second respondent. According to the petitioner, he was entitled for regularization in Group-D cadre since all his juniors were regularized. 4. While so, the second respondent, as per letter dated 07.07.2003, removed the petitioner from service, on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case. Thereafter, as per judgment dated 12.01.2005, the petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 20.01.2005 to the first respondent with a request to reinstate him into service. As per letter dated 12.01.2005, the third respondent directed the petitioner to furnish a copy of the order of acquittal and accordingly, it was furnished. The petitioner submitted one more representation dated 09.04.2006 to the first respondent requesting him to consider his case for reinstatement. But it ended in vein. Hence, the petitioner filed O.A.No.494 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The original application was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 09.04.2006. Pursuant to the same, the second respondent considered the case of the petitioner and passed an order on 05.01.2008 rejecting his claim for reinstatement into service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.382 of 2008. 5. The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the original application and rejected the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before us. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.382 of 2008. 5. The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the original application and rejected the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before us. 6. On going through the materials, it is seen that the petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case, wherein charge sheet was filed on 02.06.2003 and after conclusion of the trial in C.C.No.705 of 2003, he got acquittal by judgment dated 12.01.2005. After acquittal, he made a representation to the respondents seeking reinstatement and the same was rejected. Hence, he filed O.A.No.494 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In the meantime, the petitioner has also made three representations to the respondents for reinstatement. The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances, disposed of the original application with a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.01.2008 was passed by the second respondent rejecting the representation made by the petitioner seeking reinstatement, against which, the petitioner filed O.A.No.382 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the original application by holding that the post held by the petitioner was of temporary status and that he was involved in a criminal case. 7. The dismissal order passed by the second respondent shows that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner with regard to theft of postal article and handing over to other agencies. Once, he was dismissed from service on the ground of involvement in a criminal case, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case, should have set aside the order passed by the second respondent instead of rejecting his claim for reinstatement. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the decision taken by the second respondent in rejecting the representation on the ground that serious allegations were made against the petitioner and hence, he cannot claim for reinstatement to his old post as a matter of right, is erroneous. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the decision taken by the second respondent in rejecting the representation on the ground that serious allegations were made against the petitioner and hence, he cannot claim for reinstatement to his old post as a matter of right, is erroneous. In compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 14.09.2007 in O.A.No.494 of 2006, the second respondent has passed the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement, without conducting any enquiry, but simply stated that on careful consideration of the records and the representation of the petitioner dated 09.02.2005, it was found that departmental action taken against him as per order dated 07.07.2003 was fully justified. The order was passed without conducting any enquiry as to the institution of the criminal case against the petitioner. 8. In fact, in the earlier round of litigation, the Tribunal has given liberty to the Department to conduct an enquiry. However, no such enquiry was conducted. 9. The dismissal was solely on account of registration of First Information Report. There was no disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, once the criminal case ended in acquittal, there was no other alternative than to reinstate him into service. 10. Viewing from any angle, the order of rejection, which is impugned in the original application before the Tribunal, has no legs to stand, because it has not been passed as per law and based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the said order requires interference. 11. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal and the order impugned in the original application are set aside with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with effect from the date of acquittal. The petitioner has made a representation dated 20.01.2005 for consideration of his case for reinstatement and hence, he is entitled for half of the backwages and continuity of service from the date of his representation till the date or reinstatement. The petitioner is also entitled for all consequential service benefits. 12. The respondents are directed to comply with the order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, No costs.